| TOC |
|
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2009.
This document specifies an archiectectural framework for the application of MPLS in transport networks. It describes a profile of MPLS that enables operational models typical in transport networks networks, while providing additional OAM, survivability and other maintenance functions not currently supported by MPLS.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [1].
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Motivation and Background
1.2.
Scope
1.3.
Terminology
2.
Summary of Requirements
3.
Transport Profile Overview
3.1.
Architecture
3.2.
Addressing
3.3.
Forwarding
3.4.
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
3.4.1.
Generic Associated Channel (G-ACH)
3.4.2.
Generic Alert Label (GAL)
3.5.
Control Plane
3.5.1.
PW Control Plane
3.5.2.
LSP Control Plane
3.6.
Static Operation of LSPs and PWs
3.7.
Survivability
3.8.
Network Management
4.
Security Considerations
5.
IANA Considerations
6.
Acknowledgements
7.
References
7.1.
Normative References
7.2.
Informative References
| TOC |
| TOC |
Existing transport technologies (e.g. SDH, ATM, OTN) have been designed with specific characteristics:
The development of MPLS-TP has been driven by the carriers needing to evolve SONET/SDH networks to support packet based services and networks, and the desire to take advantage of the flexibility and cost benefits of packet switching technology.
There are three objectives:
MPLS-TP defines a profile of MPLS targeted at transport applications. This profile specifies the specific MPLS characteristics and extensions required to meet transport requirements. An equipment conforming to MPLS-TP must support this profile. An MPLS-TP conformant equipment MAY support additional MPLS features. A carrier may deploy some of those additional features in the transport layer of their network if they find them to be beneficial.
Figure 1 (MPLS-TP Service Spectrum) illustrates the range of services that MPLS-TP is intended to address. Networks supporting MPLS-TP are intended to support a range of layer 1,layer 2 and layer 3 services, and are not limited to layer 3 services only.
MPLS-TP Solution exists
over this spectrum
|<-------------------------------->|
cl-ps Multi-Service co-cs & co-ps
(cl-ps & co-ps) (Label is
| | service context)
| | |
|<------------------------------|--------------------------------->|
| | |
L3 Only L1, L2, L3 Services L1, L2 Services
Pt-Pt, Pt-MP, MP-MP Pt-Pt and Pt-MP
| Figure 1: MPLS-TP Service Spectrum |
| TOC |
This document specifies the high-level functionality of MPLS-TP required for adding transport-oriented capabilities to MPLS
| TOC |
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| LSP | Label Switched Path |
| MPLS-TP | MPLS Transport profile |
| SDH | Synchronous Digital Hierarchy |
| ATM | Asynchronous Transfer Mode |
| OTN | Optical Transport Network |
| cl-ps | Connectionless - Packet Switched |
| co-cs | Connection Oriented - Circuit Switched |
| co-ps | Connection Oriented - Packet Switched |
| OAM | Operations, Adminitration and Maintenance |
| G-ACH | Generic Associated Channel Header |
| GAL | Generic Alert Label |
| MEP | Maintenance End Point |
| MIP | Maintenance Intermediate Point |
| APS | Automatic Protection Switching |
| SCC | Signaling Communication Channel |
| MCC | Management Communication Channel |
| EMF | Equipment Management Function |
| FM | Fault Management |
| CM | Configuration Management |
| PM | Performance Management |
| TOC |
This section summarizes the requirements for the MPLS transport profile. Such requirements are specified in more detail in [20] (Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., and N. Sprecher, “MPLS-TP Requirements,” October 2008.), [21] (Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., Bocci, M., and I. Busi, “Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks,” November 2008.), and [22] (Mansfield, S., Lam, K., and E. Gray, “MPLS TP Network Management Requirements,” February 2009.).
Solutions MUST NOT modify the MPLS forwarding architecture.
Solutions MUST be based on existing pseudowire and LSP constructs.
New mechanisms and capabilities added to support transport networks must be able to interoperate or interwork with existing MPLS and pseudowire control and forwarding planes.
Point to point LSPs MAY be unidirectional or bi-directional. It MUST be possible to construct congruent Bi-directional LSPs. Point to multipoint LSPs are unidirectional.
MPLS-TP LSPs do not merge with other LSPs at an MPLS-TP LSR. It is possible to detect that a merged LSP has been created.
It MUST be possible to forward packets solely based on switching the MPLS or PW label. It MUST also be possible to establish and maintain LSPs and/or pseudowires both in the absence or presence of a dynamic control plane. When static provisioning is used, there MUST be no dependency on dynamic routing or signaling.
OAM, protection and forwarding of data packets MUST be able to operate without IP forwarding support.
It MUST be possible to monitor LSPs and pseudowires through the use of OAM in the absence of control plane or routing functions. In this case information gained from the OAM functions is used to initiate path recovery actions at either the PW or LSP layers.
| TOC |
| TOC |
The architecture for a transport profile of MPLS (MPLS-TP) is based on the MPLS-TE [2] (Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, “Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,” January 2001.), pseudowire [3] (Bryant, S. and P. Pate, “Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture,” March 2005.), and multi-segment pseudowire [4] (Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, “An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge,” July 2009.) architectures, as illustrated in Figure 2 (MPLS-TP Architecture). The primary constructs of the transport profie for MPLS are LSPs, while PWs are the primary client layer.
Native |<------------Pseudowire-------------->| Native
Service | PSN PSN | Service
(AC) | |<--cloud->| |<-cloud-->| | (AC)
| V V V V V V |
| +----+ +-----+ +----+ |
+----+ | |TPE1|===========|SPE1 |==========|TPE2| | +----+
| |------|..... PW.Seg't1.........PW.Seg't3.....|-------| |
| CE1| | | | | | | | | |CE2 |
| |------|..... PW.Seg't2.........PW.Seg't4.....|-------| |
+----+ | | |===========| |==========| | | +----+
^ +----+ ^ +-----+ ^ +----+ ^
| | | |
| TE LSP TE LSP |
| |
| |
|<---------------- Emulated Service ----------------->|
| Figure 2: MPLS-TP Architecture |
The MPLS-TP forwarding plane is a profile of the MPLS LSP PW, and MS-PW forwarding architecture as detailed in section Section 3.3 (Forwarding).
MPLS-TP supports a comprehensive set of OAM and protection-switching capabilities for packet transport applications, with equivalent capabilities to existing SONET/SDH OAM and protection, as described in sections Section 3.4 (Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)) and Section 3.7 (Survivability). MPLS-TP may be operated with centralized Network Management Systems with or without the support of a distributed control plane as described in sections Section 3.5 (Control Plane) and Section 3.8 (Network Management).
MPLS-TP defines mechanisms to differentiate specific packets (e.g. OAM, APS, MCC or SCC) from those carrying user data packets on the same LSP. These mechanisms are described in sections Section 3.4.2 (Generic Alert Label (GAL)) and Section 3.4.1 (Generic Associated Channel (G-ACH) ).
| TOC |
MPLS-TP distinguishes between adressing used to identify nodes in
the network, and identifiers used for demultiplexing and forwarding.
This distinction is illustrated in Figure 3 (Addressing in MPLS-TP).
NMS Control/Signalling
..... .....
[Address]| | [Address]
| |
+-----+---------+------+
Address = Node | | | |
ID in forwarding plane | V V |
| |
| MEP or MIP |
| dmux |
| svcid |
| src |
+--^-------------------+
|
OAM: OAM |
dmux= [GAL/GACH]...........
or ________________________________________
IP (________________________________________)
svc context=ID/FEC PWE=ID1
SRC=IP .
.
IDx
| Figure 3: Addressing in MPLS-TP |
Ediror's note: The figure above arose from discussions in the MPLS-TP design team. It will be clarified in a future verson of this draft.
IPv4 or IPv6 addresses are used to identify MPLS-TP nodes by default for network management and signaling purposes.
In the forwarding plane, identfiers are required for the service context (provided by the FEC), and for OAM. OAM requires both a demultiplexer and an address for the source of the OAM packet.
For MPLS in general where IP addressing is used, IPv4 or IPv6 is used by default. However, MPLS-TP must be able to operate in environments where IP is not used in the forwarding plane. Therefore, the default mechanism for OAM demultiplexing in MPLS-TP LSPs and PWs is the generic associated channel. Forwarding based on IP addresses for user or OAM packets is NOT REQUIRED for MPLS-TP.
RFC 4379 [23] (Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, “Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures,” February 2006.)and BFD for MPLS LSPs [24] (Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, “BFD For MPLS LSPs,” June 2008.) have defined alert mechanisms that enable a MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when the OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert mechanisms are based on TTL expiration and/or use an IP destination address in the range 127/8. These mechanisms are the default mechanisms for MPLS networks in general for identifying MPLS OAM packets when the OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. MPLS-TP must not rely on these mechanisms, and thus relies on the GACH/GAL to demultiplex OAM packets.
| TOC |
MPLS-TP LSPs use the MPLS label switching operations defined in [2] (Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, “Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,” January 2001.). These operations are highly optimized for performance and are not modified by the MPLS-TP profile.
During forwarding a label is pushed to describe the processing operaton to be performed at the next hop at that level of encapsulation. A swap of this label is an atomic operation in which the contents of the packet after the swapped label are opaque to the forwarder. The only circumstance that disrupts a swap operation is TTL expiry, in which case the packet may be discarded or subjected to further scrutinity within the LSR. Operations on a packet with an expired TTL are asynchronous to the other packets in the LSP. Thus the only way to cause a P (intermediate) LSR to inspect a packet (for example for OAM purposes) is to set the TTL to expiry at that LSR.
MPLS-TP PWs support the PW and MS-PW forwarding operations defined in [3] (Bryant, S. and P. Pate, “Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture,” March 2005.) and [4] (Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, “An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge,” July 2009.).
The Traffic Class field (former MPLS EXP field) follows the definition and processing rules of [5] (Andersson, L. and R. Asati, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label stack entry: "EXP" field renamed to "Traffic Class" field,” December 2008.) and [6] (Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services,” May 2002.). Only the pipe and short-pipe models are supported in MPLS-TP.
The MPLS encapsulation format is as defined in RFC 3032[7] (Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, “MPLS Label Stack Encoding,” January 2001.). Per-platform or the per-interface label space can be selected. Standard PW encapsulation mechanisms are applicable to the different client layers as defined by the IETF PWE3 WG.
MPLS-TP LSPs can be unidirectional or bidirectional point-to-point. As for MPLS, point-to-multipoint MPLS-TP LSPs are unidirectional.
Point-to-multipont PWs are currently in definition in the IETF and may be incorporated in MPLS-TP if required.
It MUST be possible to configure an MPLS-TP LSP such that the forward and backward directions of bidirectional MPLS-TP LSPs congruent: i.e. they follow the same path. The pairing relationship between the forward and the backward directions must be known at each MEP, MIP or segment protection endpoint on a bidirectional LSP.
Per-packet equal cost multi-path (ECMP) load balancing is not applicable to MPLS-TP LSPs, however PWs or LSPs that emulate link bundles may be employed, for example [25] (Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan, J., and S. Amante, “Flow Aware Transport of MPLS Pseudowires,” March 2009.)
Penultimate hop popping (PHP) is disabled on MPLS-TP LSPs by default. The applicability of PHP to both MPLS-TP LSPs and MPLS networks in general providing paket transport services will be clarified in a future version of this draft.
Both E-LSP and L-LSP are supported in MPLS-TP, as defined in RFC 3270 [6] (Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services,” May 2002.).
| TOC |
MPLS-TP requires [21] (Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., Bocci, M., and I. Busi, “Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks,” November 2008.) that a set of OAM capabilities is available to perform fault management (e.g. fault detection and localization) and performance monitoring (e.g. signal quality measurement) of the MPLS-TP network and the services. These capabilities are applicable at the section, LSP and PW layer. The framework for OAM in MPLS-TP is specified in [26] (Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, “MPLS-TP OAM Framework and Overview,” March 2009.).
OAM and monitoring in MPLS-TP is based on the concept of maintenance entities, as described in [26] (Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, “MPLS-TP OAM Framework and Overview,” March 2009.). A Maintenance Entity can be viewed as the association of two (or more) Maintenance End Points (MEPs) (see example in Figure 4 (Example of MPLS-TP OAM ) ). The MEPS that form an ME should be configured and managed to limit the OAM responsibilities of an OAM flow within a network or sub-network in the specific layer network that is being monitored and managed. Each OAM flow is associated to a unique ME. Each MEP within an ME resides at the boundaries of that ME. An ME may also include a set of zero or more Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs), which reside within the Maintenance Entity. Maintenance end points (MEPs) are capable of sourcing and sinking OAM flows, while maintenance intermediate points (MIPs) can only sink or respond to OAM flows.
========================== End to End LSP OAM ============================
..... ..... ..... .....
-----|MIP|---------------------|MIP|---------|MIP|------------|MIP|-----
''''' ''''' ''''' '''''
|<-------- Carrier 1 --------->| |<----- Carrier 2 ----->|
---- --- --- ---- ---- --- ----
NNI | | | | | | | | NNI | | | | | | NNI
-----| PE |---| P |---| P |----| PE |--------| PE |---| P |---| PE |-----
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
---- --- --- ---- ---- --- ----
==== Segment LSP OAM ====== == Seg't == === Seg't LSP OAM ===
(Carrier 1) LSP OAM (Carrier 2)
(inter-carrier)
..... ..... ..... .......... .......... ..... .....
|MEP|---|MIP|---|MIP|--|MEP||MEP|---|MEP||MEP|--|MIP|----|MEP|
''''' ''''' ''''' '''''''''' '''''''''' ''''' '''''
Note: MEPs for End-to-end LSP OAM exist outside of the scope of this figure.
| Figure 4: Example of MPLS-TP OAM |
Editor's note: The above diagram will be clarified in the next version of this draft.
The OAM architecture for MPLS-TP is illustrated in Figure 5 (MPLS-TP OAM archtecture).
Native |<-------------------- PW15 --------------------->| Native
Layer | | Layer
Service | |<-PSN13->| |<-PSN3X->| |<-PSNXZ->| | Service
(AC1) V V LSP V V LSP V V LSP V V (AC2)
+----+ +-+ +----+ +----+ +-+ +----+
+---+ |TPE1| | | |SPE3| |SPEX| | | |TPEZ| +---+
| | | |=========| |=========| |=========| | | |
|CE1|--------|........PW1........|...PW3...|........PW5........|-----|CE2|
| | | |=========| |=========| |=========| | | |
+---+ | 1 | |2| | 3 | | X | |Y| | Z | +---+
+----+ +-+ +----+ +----+ +-+ +----+
|<- Subnetwork 123->| |<- Subnetwork XYZ->|
.------------------- PW15 PME -------------------.
.----- PW1 TPME ----. .---- PW5 TPME -----.
.---------. .---------.
PSN13 LME PSNXZ LME
.--. .--. .--------. .--. .--.
Sec12 SME Sec23 SME Sec3X SME SecXY SME SecYZ SME
TPE1: Terminating Provider Edge 1 SPE2: Switching Provider Edge 3
TPEX: Terminating Provider Edge X SPEZ: Switching Provider Edge Z
.---. ME . MEP ==== LSP .... PW
SME: Section Maintenance Entity
LME: LSP Maintenance Entity
PME: PW Maintenance Entity
| Figure 5: MPLS-TP OAM archtecture |
The following MPLS-TP MEs are specified in [26] (Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, “MPLS-TP OAM Framework and Overview,” March 2009.):
Individual MIPs along the path of an LSP or PW are addressed by setting the appropriate TTL in the label for the OAM packet, as per [27] (Martini, L., Nadeau, T., Metz, C., Bocci, M., Aissaoui, M., Balus, F., and M. Duckett, “Segmented Pseudowire,” April 2010.). Note that this works when the location of MIPs along the LSP or PW path is known by the MEP. There may be cases where this is not the case in general MPLS networks e.g. following restoration using a facility bypass LSP.
The following is a high level summary of the classes of OAM functions that MPLS-TP supports. These are intended to be applicable to any layer defined within MPLS- TP, i.e. MPLS Section, LSP and PW:
For all of the above listed functions except alarm suppression, both "continuous" and "on-demand" operation SHOULD be supported.
Performance monitoring includes means for both "packet loss measurement" and "delay measurement".
It is REQUIRED that MPLS-TP OAM packets share the same fate as their corresponding data packets and that a means exists to identify OAM packets. The document[8] (Vigoureux, M., Bocci, M., Ward, D., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, “MPLS Generic Associated Channel,” October 2008.) proposes specific mechanisms relying on the combination of the 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)' and Generic Associated Channel Header for MPLS Sections and LSPs and using the Generic Associated Channel Header only for MPLS PWs. This is described in more detail elsewhere in this document Section 3.4.1 (Generic Associated Channel (G-ACH) ) and Section 3.4.2 (Generic Alert Label (GAL)).
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset needs to be able to operate without relying on a dynamic control plane or IP functionality in the datapath. In the case of MPLS-TP deployment with IP functionality, all existing IP-MPLS OAM functions, e.g. LSP-Ping, BFD and VCCV, may be used. This does not preculde the use of other OAM tools in an IP addressable network.
One use of OAM mechanisms is to detect link failures, node failures and performance outside the required specification which then may be used to trigger recovery actions, according to the requirements of the service.
| TOC |
MPLS-TP makes use of a generic associated channel (G-ACH) to support Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance and Security (FCAPS) functions by carrying packets related to OAM, APS, SCC, MCC or other packet types in band over LSPs or PWs. The G-ACH is defined in [8] (Vigoureux, M., Bocci, M., Ward, D., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, “MPLS Generic Associated Channel,” October 2008.)and it is similar to the PWE3 Associated Channel, which is used to carry OAM packets across pseudowires. The G-ACH is indicated by a generic associated channel header, similar to the PWE3 VCCV control word, and this is present for all LSPs and PWs making use of FCAPS functions supported by the G-ACH.
The G-ACH MUST only be used for channels that are an adjunct to the data service. Examples of these are OAM, APS, MCC and SCC, but the use is not resticted to those names services. The G-ACH MUST NOT be used to carry additional data for use in the forwarding path, i.e. it MUST NOT be used as an alternative to a PW control word, or to define a PW type.
The messages transfered over the G-ACH MUST conform to the security and congestion considerations described in [8] (Vigoureux, M., Bocci, M., Ward, D., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, “MPLS Generic Associated Channel,” October 2008.). They must also take into consideration the throughput, latency and congestion requirements of the main data channel.
Figure 1 shows the reference model depicting how the control channel is associated with the pseudowire protocol stack, as per [9] (Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, “Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires,” December 2007.).
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Layer2 | | Layer2 |
| Emulated | < Emulated Service > | Emulated |
| Services | | Services |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | VCCV/PW | |
|Demultiplexer| < Associated Channel > |Demultiplexer|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| PSN | < PSN Tunnel > | PSN |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+-----+-------+ +-----+-------+
| |
| ____ ___ ____ |
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ |
| / \__/ \_ |
| / \ |
+--------| MPLS/MPLS-TP Network |---+
\ /
\ ___ ___ __ _/
\_/ \____/ \___/ \____/
| Figure 6: PWE3 Protocol Stack Reference Model including the PW Associated Control Channel |
PW associated channel messages are encapsulated using the PWE3 encapsulation, so that they are handled and processed in the same manner (or in some cases, an analogous manner) as the PW PDUs for which they provide a control channel.
Figure 2 shows the reference model depicting how the control channel is associated with the LSP protocol stack.
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
| Payload | < Service > | Payload |
| Services | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | LSP | |
|Demultiplexer| < Associated Channel > |Demultiplexer|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| GAL | | GAL |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| PSN | < LSP > | PSN |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+-----+-------+ +-----+-------+
| |
| ____ ___ ____ |
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ |
| / \__/ \_ |
| / \ |
+--------| MPLS/MPLS-TP Network |---+
\ /
\ ___ ___ __ _/
\_/ \____/ \___/ \____/
| Figure 7: MPLS Protocol Stack Reference Model including the LSP Associated Control Channel |
LSP associated channel messages are encapsulated using a generic associated control channel header (G-ACH). The presence of the GE- ACH is indicated by the inclusion of an additional 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)'. This arrangement means that both normal data packets and packets carrying an ACH are carried over LSPs in a similar manner.
Note that where a traffic engineered LSP is used the paths will be identical. If for any reason a non-traffic engineered path (for example an LDP path) were to be used the ECMP behaviour may be modified by the presence of the GAL.
| TOC |
For correct operation of the OAM it is important that the OAM packets fate share with the data packets. In addition in MPSL-TP it is necessary to indicate that the payload carried over an LSP is not user data. For example the packet may contain Signaling Communication Channel (SCC), or Automatic Protecton Switching (APS) data. The presence of the ACH indicates that the packet is not user data and identifies its type.
PWE3 uses the first nibble of the control word to provide the initial discrimination between data packets and "other" packets [10] (Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, “Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN,” February 2006.). When the first nibble of a pseudwire packet has a value of one, then the first 32 bits that follow the bottom of stack have a defined format called an ACH, and which further defines the content of the pseudowire packet. For MPLS-TP this mechanism is further generalized to apply to also apply to LSPs and MPLS sections [8] (Vigoureux, M., Bocci, M., Ward, D., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, “MPLS Generic Associated Channel,” October 2008.).
When the OAM, or a similar message is carried over an LSP, rather than over a pseudowire, it is necessary to provide an indication in the packet that the payload is something other than a regular data packet. This is acheived by including ia new reserved label in the label stack. This reserved label is referred to as the 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)', and is defined in [8] (Vigoureux, M., Bocci, M., Ward, D., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, “MPLS Generic Associated Channel,” October 2008.). When a GAL is found anywhere within the label stack it indicates that the payload begins with an ACH. Note however that MPLS-TP forwarding follows the normal MPLS model, and that a GAL is invisible to an LSR unless it is the label being popped. The only circumstance under which the label stack may be inspected for a GAL is when the TTL has expired. Any MPLS-TP component which intentionally triggers this inspection must assume that the inspection to be asynchronous with respect to the forwarding of other packets.
In MPLS-TP, the 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)' always appears at the bottom of the label stack (i.e. S bit set to 1), however this does not preclude its use elsewhere in the label stack in other applications.
| TOC |
The MPLS-TP may utilize a distributed control plane to enable fast, dynamic and reliable service provisioning in multi-vendor and multi-domain environments using standardized protocols that guarantee interoperability.
Figure 8 (MPLS-TP Control Plane Architecture Context) illustrates the relationshop between the MPLS-TP control plane, the forwarding plane, the management plane, and OAM.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Network Management System and/or |
| |
| Control Plane for Point to Point Connections |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
............|......|..... ....|.......|.... ....|....|...............
+---+ | : : +---+ | : : +---+ | :
: |OAM| | : : |OAM| | : : |OAM| | :
: +---+ | : : +---+ | : : +---+ | :
: | | : : | | : : | | :
\: +----+ +----------+ : : +----------+ : : +----------+ +----+ :/
--+-|Edge|<->|Forwarding|<---->|Forwarding|<----->|Forwarding|<->|Edge|-+--
/: +----+ | | : : | | : : | | +----+ :\
: +----------+ : : +----------+ : : +----------+ :
''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''
Note:
1) NMS may be centralised or distributed. Control plane is distributed
2) 'Edge' functions refers to those functions present at the edge of
a PSN domain, e.g. NSP or classification.
3) OAM functions are described in more detail below.
| Figure 8: MPLS-TP Control Plane Architecture Context |
The MPLS-TP control plane is based on a combination of the MPLS control plane for pseudowires and the GMPLS control plane for MPLS-TP LSPs, respectively. More specifically, LDP is used for PW signaling and GMPLS based RSVP-TE for LSP signaling. The distributed MPLS-TP control plane provides the following basic functions:
In a multi-domain environment, the MPLS-TP control plane may provide different types of interfaces at domain boundaries or within the domains such as UNI, I-NNI, and E-NNI where different policies are in place that control what kind of information is exchanged across these different types of interfaces.
Editor's note: Isn't the following a managment plane operation. I can't think of a routing protocol triggering an OAM message. Or do we mean that the control plane is capable of reacting to OAM events? Control plane and OAM are independent.
The MPLS-TP control plane is capable of activating MPLS-TP OAM functions as described in the OAM section of this document Section 3.4 (Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)) e.g. for fault detection and localization in the event of a failure in order to efficiently restore failed transport paths.
The MPLS-TP control plane supports all MPLS-TP data plane connectivity patterns that are needed for establishing transport paths including protected paths as described in the survivability section Section 3.7 (Survivability) of this document. Examples of the MPLS-TP data plane connectivity patterns are LSPs utilizing the fast reroute backup methods as defined in [11] (Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, “Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels,” May 2005.) and ingress-to-egress 1+1 or 1:1 protected LSPs.
Moreover, the MPLS-TP control plane needs to be capable of performing fast restoration in the event of network failures.
The MPLS-TP control plane provides features to ensure its own survivavbility and to enable it to recover gracefully from failures and degredations. These include graceful restart and hot redundant configurations. The MPLS-TP control plane is largely decoupled from the MPLS-TP data plane such that failures in the control plane do not impact the data plane and vice versa.
| TOC |
An MPLS-TP packet transport network provides many of its transport services in the form of single-segment or multi-segment pseudowires following the PWE3 architecture as defined in [3] (Bryant, S. and P. Pate, “Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture,” March 2005.) and [4] (Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, “An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge,” July 2009.) . The setup and maintenance of single-segment or multi- segment pseudowires is based on the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) as per [12] (Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron, “Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP),” April 2006.) and the use of LDP in this manner is applicable to PWs used to provide MPLS transport services.
It shall be noted that multi-segment pseudowire signaling is still work in progress. The control plane supporting multi-segment pseudowires is based on [13] (Martini, L., Bocci, M., Balus, F., Bitar, N., Shah, H., Aissaoui, M., Rusmisel, J., Serbest, Y., Malis, A., Metz, C., McDysan, D., Sugimoto, J., Duckett, M., Loomis, M., Doolan, P., Pan, P., Pate, P., Radoaca, V., Wada, Y., and Y. Seo, “Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo Wires,” October 2009.).
| TOC |
Editors note: The following must be reviewed by a CP specialist. Lou will review and provide comments.
MPLS-TP provider edge nodes aggregate multiple pseudowires and carry them across the MPLS-TP network through MPLS-TP tunnels (MPLS-TP LSPs). The generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocol suite already supports packet-switched capable (PSC) technologies and is therefore used as control plane for MPLS-TP transport paths (LSPs). The LSP control plane includes:
RSVP-TE signaling in support of GMPLS as defined in [14] (Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, “RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery,” May 2007.)is used for the setup, modification, and release of MPLS-TP transport paths and protection paths. It supports unidirectional, bi-directional and multicast types of LSPs. The route of a transport path is typically calculated in the ingress node of a domain and the RSVP explicit route object (ERO) is utilized for the setup of the transport path exactly following the given route. GMPLS based MPLS-TP LSPs must be able to interoperate with RSVP-TE based MPLS-TE LSPs, as per [28] (Kumaki, K., “Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks,” March 2008.)
OSPF-TE routing in support of GMPLS as defined in [15] (Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, “OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS),” October 2005.) is used for carrying link state information in a MPLS-TP network.
For routing scalability reasons, parallel physical links in an MPLS- TP network are typically bundled into TE-links as defined in [16] (Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, “Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE),” October 2005.)and the OSPF-TE routing protocol disseminates link state information on a TE-link basis.
| TOC |
Where a control plane is not used to set up and manage PWs or LSPs, the following considerations apply. Static configuration of the PW or LSP, either by direct configuration of the PEs/LSRs, or via a network management station must take care that loops to not form on an active LSP. The OAM would normally detect a break in end to end connectivity as a consequence of a loop, and withdraw the LSP from use. However the colateral damage that a loop can during the time taken to detect the failure is severe. Therefore an LSP should not be brought into operation until it certain that loops do not exist.
| TOC |
Survivability requirements for MPLS-TP are apecified in [29] (Sprecher, N., Farrel, A., and H. Shah, “Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Survivability Framework,” February 2009.).
A wide variety of resiliency schemes have been developed to meet the various network and service survivability objectives. For example, as part of the MPLS/PW paradigms, MPLS provides methods for local repair using back-up LSP tunnels ([11] (Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, “Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels,” May 2005.)), while pseudowire redundancy [17] (Muley, P. and V. Place, “Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy,” October 2009.)supports scenarios where the protection for the PW can not be fully provided by the PSN layer (i.e. where the backup PW terminates on a different target PE node than the working PW). Additionally, GMPLS provides a set of control plane driven well known protection and restoration mechanisms [14] (Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, “RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery,” May 2007.). Finally, as part of the transport networks and applications paradigms, APS-based linear and ring protection mechanisms are defined in [18] (, “ITU-T Recommendation G.8131/Y.1382 (02/07) " Linear protection switching for Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) networks",” 2005.)and [30] (, “Draft ITU-T Recommendation G.8132/Y.1382, "T-MPLS shared protection ring", http://www.itu.int/md/T05-SG15-080211-TD-PLEN-0501/en,” 2005.).
These schemes have different scopes. They are protecting against link and/or node failures and can be applied end-to-end or on a segment of the considered connection.
These protection schemes propose different levels of resiliency (e.g. 1+1, 1:1, shared).
The applicability of any given scheme to meet specific requirements is outside the current scope of this document.
MPLS-TP resiliency mechanisms characteristics are listed below
| TOC |
The network management architecture and requirements for MPLS-TP are specified in [22] (Mansfield, S., Lam, K., and E. Gray, “MPLS TP Network Management Requirements,” February 2009.). It derives from the generic specifications described in ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 [19] (, “ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/Y.1701 (07/07), "Common equipment management function requirements",” 2005.)for transport technologies. It also leverages on the OAM requirements for MPLS Networks [31] (Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S. Matsushima, “Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks,” February 2006.) and MPLS-TP Networks [21] (Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., Bocci, M., and I. Busi, “Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks,” November 2008.)and expands on the requirements to cover the modifications necessary for fault, configuration, performance, and security.
The Equipment Management Function (EMF) of a MPLS-TP NE provides the means through which a management system manages the NE. The Management Communication Channel (MCC), realized by the G-ACH, provides a logical operations channel between NEs for transferring Management information. For the management interface from a management system to a MPLS-TP NE, there is no restriction on which management protocol should be used. It is allowed to provision and manage an end-to-end connection across a network where some segments are create/managed, for examples by Netconf or SNMP and other segments by XML or CORBA interfaces. It is allowed to run maintenance operations on a connection which is independent of the provisioning mechanism. An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management interface. In MPLS-TP. the EMF MUST be capable of statically provisioning LSPs for an LSR or LER, and PWs for a PE, as per Section 3.6 (Static Operation of LSPs and PWs ).
The Fault Management (FM) functions within the EMF of an MPLS-TP NE enable the supervision, detection, validation, isolation, correction, and alarm handling of abnormal operation of the MPLS-TP network and its environment. Supervision for transmission (such as continuity, connectivity, etc.), software processing, hardware, and environment are essential for FM. Alarm handling includes alarm severity assignment, alarm suppression/aggregation/correlation, alarm reporting control, and alarm reporting.
Configuration Management (CM) provides functions to exercise control over, identify, collect data from, and provide data to MPLS-TP NEs. In addition to general configuration for hardware, software protection switching, alarm reporting control, and date/time setting, the EMF of the MPLS-TP NE also supports the configuration of maintenance entity identifiers (such as MEP ID and MIP ID). The EMF also supports configuration of the OAM parameters as part of connectivity management to meet specific operational requirements, such as whether one-time on-demand or periodically based on a specified frequency.
The Performance Management (PM) functions within the EMF of an MPLS- TP NE supports the evaluation and reporting upon the behaviour of the equipment, NE, and network with the objective of providing coherent and consistent interpretation of the network behaviour, in particular for hybrid network which consists of multiple transport technologies. Packet loss measurement and delay measurement are collected so that they can be used to detect performance degradation. Performance degradation is reported via fault management for corrective actions (e.g. protection switch) and via performance monitoring for Service Level Agreement (SLA) verification and billing. The performance data collection mechanisms should be flexible to be configured to operate on-demand or proactively.
| TOC |
The introduction of MPLS-TP into transport networks means that the security considerations applicable to both MPLS and PWE3 apply to those transport networks. Furthermore, when general MPLS networks that utilise functionality outside of the strict MPLS-TP profile are used to support packet transport services, the security considerations of that additional functionality also apply.
Specific security considerations for MPLS-TP will be detailed in documents covering specific aspects on the MPLS-TP architecture.
| TOC |
IANA considerations resulting from specific elements of MPLS-TP functionality will be detailed in the documents specifying that functionality.
This document introduces no additional IANA considerations in itself.
| TOC |
The editors wish to thank the following for their contribution to this document:
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [1] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| [2] | Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, “Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,” RFC 3031, January 2001 (TXT). |
| [3] | Bryant, S. and P. Pate, “Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture,” RFC 3985, March 2005 (TXT). |
| [4] | Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, “An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge,” draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-07 (work in progress), July 2009 (TXT). |
| [5] | Andersson, L. and R. Asati, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label stack entry: "EXP" field renamed to "Traffic Class" field,” draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-08 (work in progress), December 2008 (TXT). |
| [6] | Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services,” RFC 3270, May 2002 (TXT). |
| [7] | Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, “MPLS Label Stack Encoding,” RFC 3032, January 2001 (TXT). |
| [8] | Vigoureux, M., Bocci, M., Ward, D., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, “MPLS Generic Associated Channel,” draft-bocci-mpls-tp-gach-gal-00 (work in progress), October 2008 (TXT). |
| [9] | Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, “Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires,” RFC 5085, December 2007 (TXT). |
| [10] | Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, “Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN,” RFC 4385, February 2006 (TXT). |
| [11] | Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, “Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels,” RFC 4090, May 2005 (TXT). |
| [12] | Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron, “Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP),” RFC 4447, April 2006 (TXT). |
| [13] | Martini, L., Bocci, M., Balus, F., Bitar, N., Shah, H., Aissaoui, M., Rusmisel, J., Serbest, Y., Malis, A., Metz, C., McDysan, D., Sugimoto, J., Duckett, M., Loomis, M., Doolan, P., Pan, P., Pate, P., Radoaca, V., Wada, Y., and Y. Seo, “Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo Wires,” draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-10 (work in progress), October 2009 (TXT). |
| [14] | Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, “RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery,” RFC 4872, May 2007 (TXT). |
| [15] | Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, “OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS),” RFC 4203, October 2005 (TXT). |
| [16] | Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, “Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE),” RFC 4201, October 2005 (TXT). |
| [17] | Muley, P. and V. Place, “Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy,” draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-02 (work in progress), October 2009 (TXT). |
| [18] | “ITU-T Recommendation G.8131/Y.1382 (02/07) " Linear protection switching for Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) networks",” 2005. |
| [19] | “ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/Y.1701 (07/07), "Common equipment management function requirements",” 2005. |
| TOC |
| [20] | Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., and N. Sprecher, “MPLS-TP Requirements,” draft-jenkins-mpls-mpls-tp-requirements-01 (work in progress), October 2008 (TXT). |
| [21] | Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., Betts, M., Bocci, M., and I. Busi, “Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks,” draft-vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-01 (work in progress), November 2008 (TXT). |
| [22] | Mansfield, S., Lam, K., and E. Gray, “MPLS TP Network Management Requirements,” draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 (work in progress), February 2009 (TXT). |
| [23] | Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, “Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures,” RFC 4379, February 2006 (TXT). |
| [24] | Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, “BFD For MPLS LSPs,” draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2008 (TXT). |
| [25] | Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan, J., and S. Amante, “Flow Aware Transport of MPLS Pseudowires,” draft-bryant-filsfils-fat-pw-03 (work in progress), March 2009 (TXT). |
| [26] | Busi, I. and B. Niven-Jenkins, “MPLS-TP OAM Framework and Overview,” draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework-02 (work in progress), March 2009 (TXT). |
| [27] | Martini, L., Nadeau, T., Metz, C., Bocci, M., Aissaoui, M., Balus, F., and M. Duckett, “Segmented Pseudowire,” draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-14 (work in progress), April 2010 (TXT). |
| [28] | Kumaki, K., “Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks,” RFC 5146, March 2008 (TXT). |
| [29] | Sprecher, N., Farrel, A., and H. Shah, “Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Survivability Framework,” draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01 (work in progress), February 2009 (TXT). |
| [30] | “Draft ITU-T Recommendation G.8132/Y.1382, "T-MPLS shared protection ring", http://www.itu.int/md/T05-SG15-080211-TD-PLEN-0501/en,” 2005. |
| [31] | Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S. Matsushima, “Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks,” RFC 4377, February 2006 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| Matthew Bocci (editor) | |
| Alcatel-Lucent | |
| Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road | |
| Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ | |
| United Kingdom | |
| Phone: | +44-207-254-5874 |
| EMail: | matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com |
| Stewart Bryant (editor) | |
| Cisco Systems | |
| 250 Longwater Ave | |
| Reading RG2 6GB | |
| United Kingdom | |
| Phone: | +44-208-824-8828 |
| EMail: | stbryant@cisco.com |
| Lieven Levrau (editor) | |
| Alcatel-Lucent | |
| 7-9, Avenue Morane Sulnier | |
| Velizy 78141 | |
| France | |
| Phone: | +33-6-33-86-1916 |
| EMail: | lieven.levrau@alcatel-lucent.com |
| TOC |
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.